Sometimes the majority’s wrong
Iwas one of the 1,406,973 people who voted yes in the cannabis referendum. My main reason for voting yes was since people were using the illegal drug widely anyway, the government, rather than criminals, might as well control supply and generate some money to mitigate the harm. My feeling of hypocrisy when guzzling my favourite legal drug might also have had some influence.
Just to recap, the referendum last October asked people for a yes or no vote on whether they supported the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill. In a nutshell, the bill allowed a person aged 20 or over to buy up to 14 grams of dried cannabis per day, only from licensed outlets. They could then consume it at home or on licensed premises and also grow up to two plants, with a maximum of four plants per household.
The referendum was defeated by about 67,000 votes, hardly a convincing rejection but no endorsement either. It was more like stalemate. The jury was split down the middle.
There was plenty wrong with the bill. A black market for cheaper, more potent cannabis would still exist and letting people grow the stuff at home was a mistake. Controlling supply should be the ultimate aim of any drug policy. The bill also made the age limit too high. However, it could have been tweaked by the parliamentary process, and it was a start.
The referendum seemed to be the end of the matter as far as the new Government was concerned. It could excuse inaction on the basis the public was simply not ready or not persuaded.
This week the debate revived somewhat with an open letter from about 25 health and social organisations, including the New Zealand Medical, Public Health and Mental Health associations, calling for low-level drug offences to be decriminalised and for users to be treated more as health patients than offenders.
‘‘While the referendum is over, the problems of prohibition have not gone away,’’ the letter said. ‘‘Our laws prevent people accessing help when they need it, and they leave thousands every year with a conviction that impacts on livelihoods, mental health, relationships, travel, housing and education.’’ The ‘‘extremely close’’ referendum had ‘‘obscured’’ the consensus among the vast majority who participated in the cannabis debate, it said.
‘‘The status quo is causing harm, and we need to improve our current approach to drug law. There is no consensus in favour of inaction.’’
The writers of the letter clearly want to differentiate between those who participated in the debate and those who took part in the referendum.
Without calling the public ignorant or stupid, the letter is saying those who know what they are talking about overwhelmingly favour drug decriminalisation.
And fair enough, but the referendum is a problem for drug reformers. If it is seen as the will of the people, they can’t afford to be too scathing. Instead, they are trying to sideline the cannabis referendum by calling for wider drug reform through an overhaul of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Tactical but not exactly subtle.
Such an overhaul could not avoid dealing with the cannabis issue. They should attack the referendum head-on.
Referendums are a great way to make rules about complicated issues if those participating are open-minded, highly knowledgeable and up-to-date about the topic, experienced in the practical elements of the problem, logical, unemotional, intelligent and capable of seeing the big picture.
The greater voting public can be wise and sensible, but some issues are best left to policymakers advised by experts. Seeking a mandate for a fundamental change which experts overwhelmingly support but the public struggles
My feeling of hypocrisy when guzzling my favourite legal drug might also have had some influence.
with and doesn’t understand is a hiding to nothing. Better to act on the evidence and then seek approval or forgiveness.
It is not as though the Government has a great reverence for referendums. It was quite happy to axe a part of the Local Electoral Act 2001 that allowed referendums on Ma¯ ori wards but didn’t produce the results the Government (and councils) wanted.
The Government needs to be persuaded it can ignore the referendum or treat it as a nullity and act according to its progressive instincts. It will have the support of many sensible conservatives who see no point in carrying on with failed attempts to fix a long-standing problem. A cannabis decriminalisation bill this term is still possible.
Many people would have been relieved the referendum parked the debate about drug reform for a while. But society is going to have to deal with the issue sooner rather than later. The world is seeing a shift away from punitive drug laws.
As the letter says: ‘‘Doing so would put into effect recommendations from the Mental Health and Addiction Inquiry, the Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group, the conclusions of the Law Commission’s 2011 legislative review, and the National Drug Policy.’’
It’s hard to see what more evidence is needed. The open letter is an old tactic and the same groups have used it before. It claims New Zealand is at a ‘‘pivotal moment’’ in drug reform. I’m not sure what the writers mean, but maybe they know something we don’t. Let’s have another crack at the Misuse of Drugs Act.